Smt Bijli Bai W/o Late Maddaram Aged About 35 Years Caste Madiya, Profession Agriculture v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mardum, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.04.03 10:46:43 +0530 2025:CGHC:15098-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 159 of 2016 Smt Bijli Bai W/o Late Maddaram Aged About 35 Years Caste Madiya, Profession Agriculture, R/o Village Bade Gumiyapal Patelpara, Thana Mardum, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mardum, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant For Respondent : : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (28.03.2025) Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal , J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. calling in question the 2 legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bastar place Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.85/2015, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. 2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 31.07.2015, at about 9:00 a.m., in village Bade Gumiyapal, Patelpara,
Legal Reasoning
Police Station Mardum, District Bastar, the appellant herein assaulted Sadhuram (Now deceased) by wooden pestle (Musal) on his head, as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries and died, thereby committed the aforesaid offence. Further case of the prosecution is that the appellant had reared the pig of deceased Sadhuram on Adhia. When piglets were born, the deceased took his share to his house. Even then the deceased was demanding the remaining pigs which the appellant refused saying that you have taken your share of pigs and she would not give her share of pigs. On this, deceased Sahuram got angry and slapped her. This made the appellant very angry and it is alleged that she assaulted Sadhuram on the head with wooden pestle used for pounding paddy, due to which Sahuram suffered grievous injuries and died. After the incident, a Panchayat meeting was convened in the village regarding the death of Sadhuram and in presence of village Sarpanch Budhram Poyami (PW-5), Dy. Sarpanch Bablu Kawasi, Patel Suklo (PW-2) and Dasru (PW-6), the appellant is said to have made extra-judicial confession that she had committed murder of Sadhuram. The matter being reported to the Police by Mose Ram (PW-1), Merg Intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-15 and FIR was registered vide Ex. P-2. Nazari 3 Naksha was prepared vide Ex.P-7. Inquest was conducted vide Ex. P-4 and the dead body of deceased Sadhuram was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. N. S. Nag (PW-9), who proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P-11), according to which, cause of death was internal/external hemorrhagic shock due to head injury and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant (Ex.P/9), the weapon of offence i.e. pestle was seized vide Ex. P-5 which was sent for chemical examination to FSL along with other seized articles but the FSL report has not been brought on record for the reason best known to the prosecution. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge - sheeted for the aforesaid offence. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The statement of appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which she denied the circumstances appearing against her in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, appellant-accused in support of her defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 4. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Legal Reasoning
5. Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for appellant, would submit that there is no eye witness to the incident 4 and the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of alleged extra judicial confession made by her in the Panchayat meeting. However, the said extra-judicial confession was not made voluntarily and it is a very weak piece of evidence unless it is corroborated by other circumstantial evidence and it cannot be made basis of conviction. As such, the conviction of the appellant is neither well-founded nor well-merited and therefore, it is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 6. On the other hand, Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The first question for consideration is as to whether the death of deceased Sadhuram was homicidal in nature? 9. Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding in this regard relying upon the postmortem report Ex.P-11 proved by Dr. N. S. Nag (PW-9), according to which, cause of death has been opined to be internal/external hemorrhagic shock due to head injury and death was homicidal in nature, which is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding. 5 10. The trial Court has convicted the appellant solely on the basis of the extra-judicial confession made by her in village Panchayat meeting which also stands proved from the statements of Suklo (PW-2) & Dalgu (PW-3). 11. Now, we will consider as to whether the conviction of the appellant on the basis of extra-judicial confession is in accordance with law or not? 12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the Court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the Court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration. [See : Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu 1 ] 13. In the matter of Sahadevan (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court further considered their earlier decisions including Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab2 and pertinently laid down the principle in paragraphs 15.1, 15.8 and 16 which is as under :- 1 (2012) 6 SCC 403 2 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259 6 “15.1. In Balwinder Singh (supra) this Court stated the principle that: (SCC p. 265, para 10) “10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.” Extra-judicial confession must be 15.8. established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambigous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it. (Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B.3 and Pancho v. State of Haryana4.) The principles 16. Upon a proper analysis of the above referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra- judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These percepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused : (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence.